As an Australian living in the US, the strangest thing I see with gun control is this ingrained fear that unless the population is armed, the government will run riot and oppress everyone.

They genuinely seem to fear their government. I explain in Australia, a government gets too big for its boots or pisses Australians off, we get a new government.

I will say though, Americans do have a real passion for hunting. And boy there is a lot to hunt here. On the other hand hunters dont seem to be generally the people behind this crazyness that erupts on a regular basis.

So go figure.

Hunters don't need semi automatic rifles

How do you know??

He doesn't.

And there are many legitimate uses of semi-automatic rifles in hunting situations.

All that tells you is action needs to be national. DC is sandwiched between 3 states and an easy drive to several more. Gun reform is meaningless in isolation like that.

And 4 States border Mexico, another dozen or so border Canada, Florida is a dinghy ride away from Cuba...

What do you do about these instances? Enforce an international gun control program?

I am not trying to throw up road blocks just for the sake of it. I'm trying to illustrate that this is something beyond the ability of most governments to handle by passing domestic legislation.

And then what do you make of the statistics that show a decrease in gun crime while gun ownership went up in that same time period?

Come on now... International borders are a completely different proposition to state borders.

You mean overall or in DC? Any number of reasons, not least the incredibly high incarceration rates, more effective policing, the incredibly high starting point for homicide rates. I don't see how a direct correlation between increased gun ownership can be made.

Even in 2015 though the US rate was 4.88 per 100,000. In Austria it was 0.51, Australia 0.98, Ireland 0.64... Rates may have dropped but by Western standards it's appalling.

The stats were nation wide i believe, but I'll put them aside, because i see it more as an interesting side point than a solid factor that can be relied upon in the absence of further information. When you look at the state by state information, it becomes less clear and is more dependent on things like the gang problem in each state, for example.

Back to the point i was making however... if you implement gun control, then it needs to be effective in achieving its aims. If the aim is to simply stop law abiding citizens from having guns, then that's easy, do what John Howard did.

But if the aim is to stop mass gun violence, then i am yet to hear of a gun control measure proposed that will achieve this. Even if you go to the extremes of ripping up the US Constitution and ban all guns, and secure the borders and stop guns being smuggled in, there are still over 350 million legal guns in circulation (more guns than people in the USA).

There is no easy fix, and the solutions proposed by politicians and commentators seem to be aimed at gaining twitter 'shares' and facebook 'likes', rather than looking at specific fixes.

But do these things need to be absolutes? Isn't action that reduces the possibility of mass shootings and homicide worthy in itself?

And 4 States border Mexico, another dozen or so border Canada, Florida is a dinghy ride away from Cuba...

What do you do about these instances? Enforce an international gun control program?

I am not trying to throw up road blocks just for the sake of it. I'm trying to illustrate that this is something beyond the ability of most governments to handle by passing domestic legislation.

And then what do you make of the statistics that show a decrease in gun crime while gun ownership went up in that same time period?

Come on now... International borders are a completely different proposition to state borders.

You mean overall or in DC? Any number of reasons, not least the incredibly high incarceration rates, more effective policing, the incredibly high starting point for homicide rates. I don't see how a direct correlation between increased gun ownership can be made.

Even in 2015 though the US rate was 4.88 per 100,000. In Austria it was 0.51, Australia 0.98, Ireland 0.64... Rates may have dropped but by Western standards it's appalling.

The stats were nation wide i believe, but I'll put them aside, because i see it more as an interesting side point than a solid factor that can be relied upon in the absence of further information. When you look at the state by state information, it becomes less clear and is more dependent on things like the gang problem in each state, for example.

Back to the point i was making however... if you implement gun control, then it needs to be effective in achieving its aims. If the aim is to simply stop law abiding citizens from having guns, then that's easy, do what John Howard did.

But if the aim is to stop mass gun violence, then i am yet to hear of a gun control measure proposed that will achieve this. Even if you go to the extremes of ripping up the US Constitution and ban all guns, and secure the borders and stop guns being smuggled in, there are still over 350 million legal guns in circulation (more guns than people in the USA).

There is no easy fix, and the solutions proposed by politicians and commentators seem to be aimed at gaining twitter 'shares' and facebook 'likes', rather than looking at specific fixes.

But do these things need to be absolutes? Isn't action that reduces the possibility of mass shootings and homicide worthy in itself?

No, if anything they need to go the other way and allow the population to access weapons grade plutonium just in case someone breaks in to steal their TV.

I've seen diamonds cut through harder men than you yourself but if you must pretend you may meet your end.

And 4 States border Mexico, another dozen or so border Canada, Florida is a dinghy ride away from Cuba...

What do you do about these instances? Enforce an international gun control program?

I am not trying to throw up road blocks just for the sake of it. I'm trying to illustrate that this is something beyond the ability of most governments to handle by passing domestic legislation.

And then what do you make of the statistics that show a decrease in gun crime while gun ownership went up in that same time period?

Come on now... International borders are a completely different proposition to state borders.

You mean overall or in DC? Any number of reasons, not least the incredibly high incarceration rates, more effective policing, the incredibly high starting point for homicide rates. I don't see how a direct correlation between increased gun ownership can be made.

Even in 2015 though the US rate was 4.88 per 100,000. In Austria it was 0.51, Australia 0.98, Ireland 0.64... Rates may have dropped but by Western standards it's appalling.

The stats were nation wide i believe, but I'll put them aside, because i see it more as an interesting side point than a solid factor that can be relied upon in the absence of further information. When you look at the state by state information, it becomes less clear and is more dependent on things like the gang problem in each state, for example.

Back to the point i was making however... if you implement gun control, then it needs to be effective in achieving its aims. If the aim is to simply stop law abiding citizens from having guns, then that's easy, do what John Howard did.

But if the aim is to stop mass gun violence, then i am yet to hear of a gun control measure proposed that will achieve this. Even if you go to the extremes of ripping up the US Constitution and ban all guns, and secure the borders and stop guns being smuggled in, there are still over 350 million legal guns in circulation (more guns than people in the USA).

There is no easy fix, and the solutions proposed by politicians and commentators seem to be aimed at gaining twitter 'shares' and facebook 'likes', rather than looking at specific fixes.

But do these things need to be absolutes? Isn't action that reduces the possibility of mass shootings and homicide worthy in itself?

100%, you bring in measures to limit the chances of these things happening, and there are things to reduce the amount of guns in the us, implement a buy back scheme for any firearms that become illegal under new laws being implemented, also extend that to weapons that are illegal currently.

I am not someone advocating for no guns, I grew up with a shooters license from the age of 12 and had used firearms before that age, my father was a professional shooter in the 70's and 80's and even as 5 year old kid my favourite activity with my father was a night of fox shooting. They are still amongst my favourite memories from my childhood. In saying that with the amount of deaths, specifically the deaths of children that occur in the United States due to guns I can not understand how any society can just accept that this is the price of their freedom, I do not care how ingrained it is in their culture, that is just plain messed up.

But do these things need to be absolutes? Isn't action that reduces the possibility of mass shootings and homicide worthy in itself?

Of course.

But they have to actually do what you have described, within the applicable framework.

Safe Storage, limiting magazine capacities, in-depth background checks, so called gun-show loopholes ... they wont actually stop someone from killing a whole bunch of people if they really want to. They more or less just give off the impression that gun ownership is being regulated, without tackling the specific problem of mass killings.

There are probably alot of other factors that make a person commit such acts that need to be looked at in conjunction with gun laws. Terrorism is an obvious one, but also the massive rates of prescription mind-altering drugs which i am sure would have a bearing on a persona's mental state prior to carrying out one of these attacks. The guns are the means by which they kill all the people, but what put them in such a position in the first place, that made them want to kill all those people?

As an Australian living in the US, the strangest thing I see with gun control is this ingrained fear that unless the population is armed, the government will run riot and oppress everyone.

They genuinely seem to fear their government. I explain in Australia, a government gets too big for its boots or pisses Australians off, we get a new government.

I will say though, Americans do have a real passion for hunting. And boy there is a lot to hunt here. On the other hand hunters dont seem to be generally the people behind this crazyness that erupts on a regular basis.

So go figure.

Hunters don't need semi automatic rifles

How do you know??

Well, the prey does not have a gun to shoot back for a start, so no need to be able to fire more rapidly.

Are you being sarcastic are you seriously asking me? You seriously need me to explain it to you? I really don't need to do that, unless English isn't your first language?

Calm down. It's a genuine question. Maybe clarify that before you start with the insults.

i wasn't trying to insult you mate. Sorry if i came across as that.

No worries. I'm vaguley familiar with the plan - I just didn't know what point you had in mind. I'm assuming the false flag part of it was what you had in mind? As far as I'm aware it never happened?

That's right. I'm no tin foiler. But my uncle was with the LAPD for over 20 years and entered the CIA. His father was with the police force and my grand father was with the police too and the cia was built from its foundations by mobsters and gangsters. My uncle chose not to join the CIA after he was cleared cause his dad told him he would be the dumbest ever CIA officer and would get himself killed. Point is there's a lot of crap going on.

Nothing wrong with asking questions. Especially when everyone has access to smart phones and a wealth of information at their disposal. In a time when mainstream media is dying and citizen journalism is on the rise it's a good thing people ask questions.

... and even more mis-information.

without digressing too much from the topic i would disagree. I think we live in an age where we are smarter and healthier than we have ever been in human history. Information which isn't accurate generally speaking is far less likely to be ranked by search engines such as Yahoo; Baidu; Google et al , which in turn limits traffic and increases bounce rate. Wikipedia as an example corrects any editing done on its websites within a few hours.

I can totally understand apprehension and caution with questioning media when in the 1950s you had operation mocking bird which still affects modern media.

Thats a big call - definitely healthier but the jury is out on smarter - we no longer think for ourselves or make judgements based on what we believe is right and what we feel is right - these search engines and social media have massive influence on what people believe - media and govts control what information is released and unfortunately a lot of people fail to question the idiocy of what they are being told.

That's a big call? Its a non issue lol. there's no two ways about it. Facts and information are openly available to all now.

Dude, you can search anything online in 2017, there's a reason why professions like journalism; tourist agencies and these archaic proffesions are dying. Information is free flowing. Yes, in SOME instances government control mainstream media i agree and ironically at the same time mainstream media is dying because people can find contradictory information which supports truth and integrity. You realise citizen journalism is rising right? You go on youtube to BBC; CNN; Fox news and these 'news' organisations have to disable their comment section. Why do you think Reddit; 4chan are so popular? That elitist Jay Rockefeller once said internet "is the number one national hazard". It's a hazard because people can't be easily manipulated with lies anymore. A lot of people do fail and follow media lies, but the the majority of people have the capacity now to see truth. There's no two ways about it. Sorry.

You realise citizen journalism is rising right?
... people can't be easily manipulated with lies anymore.
...but the the majority of people have the capacity now to see truth. There's no two ways about it. Sorry.

Sorry, but I nearly choked on my Corn Flakes. By far the greatest amount of mis-information on the planet comes from the Internet. What you're suggesting as 'truth' can be any fanciful story, made up by anyone, for any purpose. When we consider everything we read on the Internet as true, we'll know we're in real trouble.

You realise citizen journalism is rising right?
... people can't be easily manipulated with lies anymore.
...but the the majority of people have the capacity now to see truth. There's no two ways about it. Sorry.

Sorry, but I nearly choked on my Corn Flakes. By far the greatest amount of mis-information on the planet comes from the Internet. What you're suggesting as 'truth' can be any fanciful story, made up by anyone, for any purpose. When we consider everything we read on the Internet as true, we'll know we're in real trouble.

Yeah I have to agree with VOR. Any idiot can write something unsubstantiated and put it on the idiot for the masses to swallow up. If everyone is capable of critical thinking then I'd agree, but not everyone is.

The amount of people who comment on the Betoota Advocate stories on Facebook believing they are real is astounding.

I've seen diamonds cut through harder men than you yourself but if you must pretend you may meet your end.

You realise citizen journalism is rising right?
... people can't be easily manipulated with lies anymore.
...but the the majority of people have the capacity now to see truth. There's no two ways about it. Sorry.

Sorry, but I nearly choked on my Corn Flakes. By far the greatest amount of mis-information on the planet comes from the Internet. What you're suggesting as 'truth' can be any fanciful story, made up by anyone, for any purpose. When we consider everything we read on the Internet as true, we'll know we're in real trouble.

Yeah I have to agree with VOR. Any idiot can write something unsubstantiated and put it on the idiot for the masses to swallow up. If everyone is capable of critical thinking then I'd agree, but not everyone is.

The amount of people who comment on the Betoota Advocate stories on Facebook believing they are real is astounding.

VOR, took a snippet of my comment and concluded that i said there was truth on the internet. Reread what i wrote. I was saying there is a lot of crap online but there is also a lot of truth and people have the capacity to weigh up for themselves what the truth is. If you post nonsense online without evidence etc then people stop clicking on your site. No clciks = high bounce rate which equals less traffic which equals lower ranking. For as many 'fanciful' stories as you say there are just as many stories telling the contradicting story.

Information is at your finger tips. You can search how to play the guitar; how to cook curry; how to fix the lawn mower; anything. If someone puts up the wrong information about how to make curry do you think he will still get hits? Will it rank ?

Why do you think BBC; CNBC; FOX news et al are dying? as i said above comment? Journalism is dying because people can source information for themselves now. People are turning away from traditional media now because their information is so bias, Fairfax lost thousands of jobs in the past few years dude. This point isn't even an debate.

You realise citizen journalism is rising right?
... people can't be easily manipulated with lies anymore.
...but the the majority of people have the capacity now to see truth. There's no two ways about it. Sorry.

Sorry, but I nearly choked on my Corn Flakes. By far the greatest amount of mis-information on the planet comes from the Internet. What you're suggesting as 'truth' can be any fanciful story, made up by anyone, for any purpose. When we consider everything we read on the Internet as true, we'll know we're in real trouble.

i'm also assuming you know search engines like Google; Baidu; Yahoo et al within the last few years have changed the way in which they rank websites and content right? You heard of Google Panda? No longer can people stack their websites with key words and back links like the early 2000's and back end them with crappy content and pass it for higher ranking.

More recently, search engines are able to not only rank websites for quality content but also able to discern through : - core ranking algorithms; length of content; ad placement; page layout; quality of content etc, video quality. Point is you can't get away with a lot of crap anymore because SEO in the modern day is so much more specialised.

Crap content= no ranking its pretty simple,

only yesterday Baidu president said AI to be one of the most transformative issues of our time

I'm getting the distinct feeling that you don't like me for some reason MG. What's hurt your feelings?

I have no personal opinion of you either way. I dont debate people I debate issues.

Gun proponents are all about what wont work without ever offering solutions.

Gun proponents agree mental stability can be a major factor in many of these mass shootings, yet fought any legislation to stop access by mental disturbed people to guns

Gun proponents agree that criminal access to guns is an issue but successfully fought against electronic chip identification for weapons.

Gun proponents agree that criminal access to guns is an issue but successfully fought against banning guns made from materials that resist leaving finger prints.

So if its not personal, then why all the sniping? Do you just hate people who like guns?

I am a gun proponent, and i don't think i am guilty of any of the above. So not sure why a post full of generalisations was directed at me.

To the contrary, most gun control activists like to propose restrictions that neither solve problems nor respect the rights of gun owners. The opinions generated on this thread could be cited as a good example of that.

Ultimately the purpose of gun control should be to keep weapons out of the hands of criminals and the mentally ill, while not infringing on the freedoms of law abiding citizens. That's not an easy balance to strike.

If your trophy hunting, or popping off rabbits for fun, its definitely not necessary.

However if your trying to eradicate pests at a rapid rate, its a better option than a bolt action for simple efficiency. You can jump on Youtube and see guys driving through their fields in Texas killing dozens of hogs in the space of 5 or 10 minutes at close range. That's just not possible with a bolt action. And if your livelihood depends on getting these pigs off your farm, then you will reach for the semi every time.

I'm a pretty avid hunter, and i have never felt the need to have a semi auto for any hunting i have personally done. But different tools for different jobs.